November 2026 Ballot - Amendment 7

The $435 Billion Question—and Why Amendment 7 Could Require Even More

August 11, 2026 | Act for Missouri

Amendment 7 promises a future in which investment earnings support Missouri government and state taxes disappear. The appealing promise leaves voters with a much harder question: How much public money must be locked away, for how long, and who benefits while Missouri waits?

What Amendment 7 would create

Amendment 7 is the ballot version of Senate Joint Resolution 95. It would create the Show-Me Prosperity Fund, described as a permanent public endowment. The General Assembly could appropriate money into the fund, and the fund could also accept gifts, donations, grants, and bequests.

The State Treasurer would invest the money in exchange-traded funds that track the performance of the S&P 500, or a comparable successor index later designated by law. The proposal also says those investments must be made consistently with fiduciary standards applicable to public trust funds.

The fund's principal could not be appropriated, pledged, or borrowed against. Its balance and performance would have to be published at least quarterly, and the State Auditor would review compliance at least once every three fiscal years.

No tax relief until the fund can replace all the listed taxes

The first major concern is the trigger. Amendment 7 says no money may be appropriated from the fund until the Treasurer notifies the General Assembly that the previous fiscal year's net investment earnings are sufficient to replace the revenue generated by all of the taxes listed in the amendment. The General Assembly must then approve that notification by concurrent resolution.

Those taxes include:

• The individual income tax;
• The state sales and use tax;
• The corporate income tax; and
• All other state-imposed taxes, with priorities to be determined later by law.

This matters because supporters may describe the plan as eliminating one tax at a time. The amendment may allow lawmakers to decide how tax elimination is implemented after the trigger, but it does not permit the fund to begin replacing even one tax until its earnings pass the all-taxes test.

The official fiscal note confirms this interpretation. The Department of Revenue concluded that no money could be appropriated until the fund was large enough to cover the listed taxes. Only then could the General Assembly begin using fund earnings to replace them.

"We are back to the question of TRUST."

Calzone called attention to the scale of the endowment and the trust voters would place in future legislatures. His observation is important because money deposited today could remain unavailable for tax relief or any other public purpose for generations.

Missouri voters have already sent a message about trust

Trust is not an abstract concern. In the August 2026 election, Missouri voters rejected two other legislatively referred constitutional amendments by overwhelming margins. More than 80% voted against Amendment 4, which would have raised the approval threshold for citizen-initiated constitutional amendments. Roughly 83% voted against Amendment 5, which would have directed the legislature to phase out the individual income tax and left major implementation decisions to lawmakers.

Amendments 4 and 5 were different proposals, and their defeats do not automatically decide Amendment 7. But the results are a clear warning against a “trust us; the details can come later” approach. Amendment 7 again asks citizens to approve the permanent constitutional structure first and trust future legislatures to decide how much money to commit, when to commit it, which taxes to eliminate first, and what protections should govern the investment-provider selection.

Why the trigger may require $435 billion—and possibly much more

An $8 billion illustration would cover only part of Amendment 7's requirement. The amendment does not allow the trigger to be based on the individual income tax alone. It requires enough net investment earnings to replace the revenue generated by the individual income tax, state sales and use tax, corporate income tax, and all other state-imposed taxes.

Missouri's June 2026 General Revenue report provides a useful current benchmark. For fiscal year 2026, it reported $9.14 billion in gross individual income tax collections, $3.40 billion in sales and use tax collections, and $763.1 million in corporate income and franchise tax collections. It also reported $576.2 million in pass-through entity taxes and $1.07 billion in other collections. After $1.89 billion in refunds, total net General Revenue collections were approximately $13.05 billion.

The constitutional text and fiscal note do not provide an official dollar total for the all-taxes trigger. Accordingly, $13.05 billion should be treated as a conservative benchmark, not a definitive forecast. The actual target would change with tax collections, tax laws, economic conditions, and the interpretation of “all other state-imposed tax.”

Amendment 7 contains a second rule: annual appropriations may not exceed 3% of the fund's average market value during the preceding five fiscal years. Under that limit, producing $13.05 billion of spendable money would require a five-year average fund value of approximately $435 billion.

The two constitutional tests do not line up. A strong stock-market year could allow the Treasurer to certify that annual earnings were sufficient, while the five-year spending limit could still prevent the fund from replacing the same amount of tax revenue.

The investment manager could collect very large fees

Amendment 7 does not name a particular ETF company. It directs the Treasurer to invest in ETFs tracking the S&P 500 and leaves the selection of qualifying investments to the Treasurer, subject to fiduciary standards and any applicable laws.

The amendment expressly defines net investment earnings after investment-management fees and expenses. It therefore anticipates that private firms will be paid from fund assets. Yet the amendment itself does not impose a fee cap, require selection of the lowest-cost qualifying fund, mandate competitive bidding, limit how much can be placed with one provider, or require an independent board to approve the selection.

At a minimum, implementing law should require an open competitive process; published standards for fees, tracking accuracy, liquidity, and risk; disclosure of relevant political and financial relationships; mandatory recusals; independent review; and annual public reporting of every provider and every dollar of fees. Lawmakers could add those protections later, but Amendment 7 does not guarantee them, and a future legislature could change ordinary statutes.

Here is what several small annual fee rates would mean at different fund sizes:

What the fiscal note does - and does not - tell voters

The final fiscal note, dated May 29, 2026, does not estimate how much Missouri would deposit, how long accumulation would take, how much foregone tax relief or public spending would result, or how much investment managers would receive.

Instead, the Oversight Division reports future General Revenue appropriations as $0 or unknown because the timing and amount would be left to future legislatures. It also says those discretionary appropriations could exceed $250,000 in a fiscal year.

The fiscal note also reports that the Treasurer's Office assumed no additional administrative fiscal impact. That is different from saying no private management fees will be paid. The constitutional text specifically subtracts management fees and expenses when defining net earnings.

A permanent endowment during a state budget squeeze

Amendment 7 does not require an immediate deposit. That makes the initial cost unknown, but it does not remove the tradeoff. Every future General Revenue dollar placed in the fund would become permanent principal that could not be appropriated, pledged, or borrowed against—even if the state later faced a budget emergency.

That deserves special attention now. In June 2026, the Missouri State Auditor warned that the budget then authorized by the General Assembly was projected to spend more than $1.7 billion above ongoing revenue in FY2027—nearly $2 billion. After vetoes and spending restrictions, the governor signed what his office described as a balanced FY2027 budget, but the administration still acknowledged that lawmakers had used $179.1 million in one-time cash for ongoing costs and that Missouri faced a projected FY2028 shortfall of more than $500 million.

There are safeguards, but important protections are missing

Amendment 7 contains several legitimate protections:

• The principal cannot be spent, pledged, or borrowed against.
• Annual appropriations are capped at 3% of the five-year average value.
• The fund's balance and performance must be updated at least quarterly.
• The State Auditor must audit compliance at least once every three fiscal years.

But the amendment leaves other essential protections unanswered:

• No dedicated funding source or contribution schedule;
• No deadline or realistic forecast for reaching the trigger;
• No constitutional fee ceiling;
• No constitutional competitive-selection process for ETF providers;
• No requirement to publish competing bids, expense ratios, tracking error, or total fees;
• No provider-concentration limit;
• No special disclosure or recusal rule for campaign contributions or financial relationships involving officials and investment providers; and
• No clear solution when the one-year earnings trigger is met but the five-year spending cap cannot replace the taxes.

The promise is simple. The commitment is not.

Eliminating taxes through investment earnings is an attractive goal. But Amendment 7 asks voters to place a permanent structure in the Missouri Constitution before lawmakers identify where the money will come from, how much will be required, how providers will be selected, or how fees and conflicts will be controlled.

Missourians could contribute enormous sums for decades - perhaps generations - without receiving any tax relief. Using current net General Revenue as a conservative proxy produces a $435 billion requirement under the 3% spending limit, while a broader measure of state taxes points above $600 billion. The target would keep moving as revenues change, and fees would be deducted before the trigger is tested. Meanwhile, the firms selected to manage the money could earn substantial annual fees long before the fund eliminates a single tax.

A sound constitutional amendment should resolve those questions before asking voters for permanent authority. Amendment 7 does not.

Read the source documents

• Final text of SJR 95 / Amendment 7
• Final fiscal note for SJR 95
• Missouri Secretary of State ballot language
• Ron Calzone's August 7 commentary
• August 2026 results for Amendments 4 and 5
• Missouri's June 2026 General Revenue report
• Missouri Department of Revenue fiscal year 2025 Financial and Statistical Report
• Missouri State Auditor's June 2026 budget warning
• Governor's FY2027 signed-budget announcement